[blind-democracy] Re: Fukushima

  • From: "Evan Reese" <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:47:21 -0500

Well, I've read the CounterPunch article first, since you said it was the most informative.
Interesting. There are some points here that I think are definitely worth considering. I note them below. But the article is problematic in a number of ways.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the source they quote most often is this Harvey Wasserman, who is described, even in the article, as a nuclear activist. So why should I trust that he is a credible source? You don't trust my source, who used to be an antinuclear activist but now has changed his mind, so why should I trust someone who has a vested interest in playing up the consequences and potential consequences of Fukushima?
Also, I notice they didn't mention any worker deaths. They did discuss low worker morale, which is indeed an issue they should do something about, but no worker deaths due to the accident. You claimed that workers had died after the accident.
Furthermore, they mention radiation releases into the Pacific ocean, but not the level of radiation. Just because radiation is released, does not necessarily mean that it is harmful to humans. As one of the articles I posted points out, you get increased radiation on a plain flight. If the levels of radiation are seriously harmful, they should be able to say so and give numbers. Which leads to my final problem.
Finally, the article admits that they don't even know the impact of these releases. Quoting:
"The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation is in the process of writing a report
to assess the radiation doses and associated effects on health and environment.
When finalized, it will be the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the information
available to date examining how much radioactive material was released, how it was
dispersed over land and water, how Fukushima compares to previous accidents, what
the impact is on the environment and food, and what the impact is on human health and the environment."
So they admit, (kind of under the radar as it were), that they really don't know what the consequences were, which means that all the talk here about apocolyptic threats is pure speculation. And five years later, where's the catastrophic impact that was supposed to have arrived on our West coast shores?
Now one other point, in addition to the concern over worker morale is that I think it might be a plausible argument that the cleanup should be taken away from TEPCO. It is indeed a concern when an apparently incompetent or even just careless company is running the show.
Having said that, with regard to the article overall, While there are certainly some facts mixed in here, large parts of this are hype and speculation, not factual, and a lot of it is based on a guy who clearly has an interest in overplaying the situation.
If this is your most informative article, I think one could be forgiven for just skipping the rest. But I'll give at least one other a try and see if it is more substantial than this one.
Evan

-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 4:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Fukushima

This first article, regarding plans to build a nuclear plant in Great
Britain, is a sales pitch for nuclear energy. Read carefully and along with
the damage, briefly mentioned, is the clear message that the accident would
not have taken place, had it not been for humor error and attempts to save
money by cutting corners, two things that  are typical behavior.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/19/uk-government-new-plant-
fukushima-nuclear-disaster-warning
On the other hand,
https://progressive.org/magazine/shadow-fukushima/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/25/the-global-threat-of-fukushima/
And 6 years later
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-falt
ers-six-years-after-tsunami

The most informative article is the one from Counterpunch.
Miriam






Other related posts: